Harmonious Construction

Harmonious Construction
• It is a cardinal rule of construction that when
there are in a statute two provisions which are
in such conflict with each other, that both of
them cannot stand together, they should
possibly be so interpreted that effect can be
given to both.
• And that a construction which renders either
of them inoperative and useless should not be
adopted except in the last resort.
Main principles of this rule are:
• The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly
contradicting provisions and they must construe the
contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them
• The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the
provision contained in another unless the court, despite all its
effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences.
• When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in
contradictory provisions, the courts must interpret them in such
as way so that effect is given to both the provisions as much as
possible.
• Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces
one provision to a useless number or dead is not harmonious
construction.
• To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to
render it fruitless.
Cantonment Board, Mhow and Anr Vs. M.P.
State Road Transport Corpn.
Cantonments Act 1924
• 60. General Power of taxation: (1) The Board
may, with the previous sanction of the Central
Government, impose in any cantonment any tax
which under any enactment for the time being
in force, may be imposed in any municipality in
the State wherein such cantonment is situated.
• (2) Any tax imposed under this section shall take
effect from the date of its notification in the
Official Gazette or where any later date specified
in this behalf in the notification, from such later
date.
The Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947

 Levy of Tax - ………..

• 3(2) The tax leviable under Sub-section (1) shall be paid by the
owner of the motor vehicle used or kept of use -
(i) for a whole quarter at one-fourth of the annual rate specified in the First
schedule, and for two or more whole quarters, pro rata; or
(ii) for any period expiring on the last day of a quarter and not exceeding two
months at one-sixth or one-twelfth of the rate specified in the First
Schedule, according as the period exceeds, or does not exceed one month.
• S.6. Bar of imposition of tax by any local authority –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time
being in force, no local authority shall, after the commencement of this Act,
impose for enhance a tax, toll or licence fee in respect of a motor vehicle
and if any local authority has imposed such tax, toll or licence fee since
before the 1st day of April, 1942 and the same is still in force all the
commencement of this Act any person who is liable to pay such tax, toll or
licence fee to such authority shall be deemed to have paid it.
Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961
• 127. Taxes which may be imposed - (1) A council
may, from time to time, and subject to the
provisions of this Chapter, and any general or
special order which the State Government may
make in this behalf, impose in the whole or in
any part of the Municipality any of the following
taxes, for the purposes of the Act, namely:
• (iii) a tax on vehicles, boats and animals used as
aforesaid entering the limits of the Municipality.
Facts
• The Cantonment Board Saugor, Mhow, Jabalpur by
exercising the power under Section 60 of the
Cantonment imposed entry tax on Motor Vehicles by
respective notifications.
• All these Notifications issued by different Cantonment
Boards were challenged before the M.P HC.
• H.C held that the Cantonment Board has no power to
levy entry tax on motor vehicles so long as the
prohibitions contained in Section 6 of the Taxation Act
continues and accordingly the notifications issued by the
Cantonment Board were quashed and thus the present
appeals.
 Madhya Pradesh
Motor Vehicles
Cantonments Taxation Act,
1947 Municipalities
Act 1924 Act 1961
• Levy of tax on
•Cantonment • Imposition of tax
Motor Vehicle
Board to on vehicles, boats
which is used or
impose tax. kept for use and animals
entering the limits
of the
• A ban on levy of
Municipality
tax by any local
authority under
Section 6
Issue
• Whether the Cantonment Board could impose
tax on vehicles entering the limits of the
Cantonments which could have otherwise
been levied by the Municipality in exercise of
power under Section 127(1)(iii) of the
Municipalities Act.
Held
• The tax leviable on Motor Vehicles when used or kept for use under
Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is
different from the tax leviable on Motor Vehicles.
• Entering the limits of the Municipality under Section 127(1)(iii) of the
Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and there is no repugnancy
between the two and both the provisions can therefore operate in its
own field.
• Since under Section 127(1)(iii) of the Municipalities Act, Municipality
could levy a tax on Motor Vehicles entering the limits of the
Municipality, the same could be levied by the Cantonment Board in
exercise of its power under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act with
the previous sanction of the Central Government. Consequently,
notifications issued by the Cantonment Boards of Mhow, Jabalpur
and Saugar were valid notifications issued under Section 60 of the
Cantonments Act and imposition of tax on Motor Vehicles entering
into the limits of the Cantonment Boards cannot be said to be invalid
or inoperative
K.M.Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra(AIR 1961 SC 112)
• Nanavati, a Naval Commander, was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's
lover. With Nanavati frequently away on assignments, the lonely Sylvia fell in love
with Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja, a friend of Nanavati.

• On April 27, 1959, Nanavati returned home from one of his assignments and
finding Sylvia aloof and distant, he questioned her. Sylvia, who now doubted
Ahuja's intention to marry her, confessed about the affair to her husband.

• Nanavati went to the Naval base, collected his pistol on a false pretext from the
stores along with six cartridges, completed his official duties and proceeded to
Ahuja's office. On not finding him there went straight to his flat. 

• At Ahuja's residence, Nanavati confronted him and asked him whether he

intended to marry Sylvia and accept their children. After Ahuja replied in the
negative, three shots were fired and Ahuja dropped dead.
 
• Nanavati headed straight to confess to the Provost Marshal of the Western Naval
Command and on his advice, turned himself in to the Deputy Commissioner of
Police. The jury in the Greater Bombay Sessions court pronounced Nanavati as
not guilty.
• In the Bombay High Court, the defence put forth their version of
the incident, for which there were no witnesses other than the
two men. The High Court agreed with the prosecution's argument
that the murder was premeditated and sentenced Nanavati to life
imprisonment for culpable homicide amounting to murder.
• On the same day when the High Court pronounced its judgment
the Governor of Bombay passed an order under Art. 161 of the
Constitution of India suspending the sentence passed by the High
Court of Bombay on the petitioner until an appeal intended to be
filed by him in the Supreme Court
• A warrant for the arrest of the petitioner which was issued in
pursuance of the judgment of the High Court was returned
unserved with the report that it could not be served in view of the
order of the Governor suspending the sentence passed upon the
petitioner.
Article 161 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to
suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain
cases
The Governor of a State shall have the power to
grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions
of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute
the sentence of any person convicted of any
offence against any law relating to a matter to
which the executive power of the State extends
Article 142 in The Constitution Of India 1949
142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless
as to discovery, etc
( 1 ) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass
such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete
justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so
passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the
territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under
any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so
made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by
Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the
territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the
purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or
production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of
any contempt of itself.
Rule 5 of 0. XXI of the Rules of SC Court was
framed these terms:- "Where the- petitioner has
been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the
petition shall state whether the petitioner has
surrendered. Unless the Court otherwise orders,
the petition shall not be posted for hearing until
the petitioner has surrendered to his sentence."
Issues in context with interpretation of statute

• Whether SLP can be entertained without fulfill

the order under Art. 142?

• Whether the pardoning power of governor

under Art. 161 and SLP can moved together?
• By invoking the harmonious construction rule
the SC held that the apparently absolute
power of the governor under Art.161 of the
Constitution to grant pardon or to suspend a
sentence passed on an accused person is not
available during the period the matter
becomes sub judice before the SC as
otherwise it will conflict with the judicial
power of that court provided under Art. 142 of
Constitution.
• By invoking the harmonious construction rule
the SC held that the apparently absolute
power of the governor under Art.161 of the
Constitution to grant pardon or to suspend a
sentence passed on an accused person is not
available during the period the matter
becomes sub judice before the SC as
otherwise it will conflict with the judicial
power of that court provided under Art. 142 of
Constitution.
Answer to issue 1
The SLP was dismissed by the supreme court, by
majority, holding that the appellant’s SLP could
not be lisited for hearing unless he surrender
under Art. 142 (as per the judgement of HC).

Answer to issue 2
The appellant has made SLP and an application of
pardoning power to the governor. The governor
reduced his sentence. The SC held that SLP and
pardoning power cannot operate together both
are different. If SLP is filed then the power of
governor in such condition will be ceased.
The Sirsilk Ltd. And Others vs Government
Of Andhra Pradesh (1964 SCR (2) 448)
Facts:
• Industrial disputes having arisen between the appellants and
their workmen the disputes were referred for adjudication.
• After the Tribunal forwarded their Awards to the Government
the parties in each dispute came to settlement.
• Thereafter letters were sent to the Government requesting
them to withhold the publication of the Awards.
• The Government replied that under s. 17 of the Act it was
mandatory for the Government to publish the Awards and
they could not withhold publication.
• Thereupon writ petitions were filed before the High Court
under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the
Government might be directed to withhold the publication.
•  The High Court held that since the provisions of s. 17 of the
Act were mandatory it was not open to the High Court to
issue writs as prayed for and rejected, the petitions.
S.17 Publication of reports and awards.-
(1) Every report of a Board or Court together with
any minute of dissent recorded therewith, every
arbitration award and every award of a Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall, within a
period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by
the appropriate Government, be published in such
manner as the appropriate Government thinks fit.
(2) Subject to the provisions of section 17A, the
award published under sub- section (1) shall be
final and shall not be called in question by any
Court in any manner whatsoever.
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.-
(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman
otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the
parties to the agreement.
(2) 3[ Subject to the provisions of sub- section (3), an arbitration award] which
has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who
referred the dispute to arbitration.]
(3) 4[ ] A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under
this Act 5[ or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued
under sub- section (3A) of section 10A] or 6[ an award 7[ of a Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding
on--
(a) all parties to the industrial dispute;
(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute,
unless the Board, 5[ arbitrator,] 8[ Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], as the
case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause;
(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors
or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;
(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all
persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the
case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who
subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.
• Held, that it is clear on a reading of s. 17 and s. 17A together that
the intention behind s. 17 (1) is that a duty is cast on Government
to publish the award within thirty days of its receipt and the
provision for its publication is mandatory and not merely directory.
• When an agreement that has been arrived at between the parties,
though not in the course course of conciliation proceedings, it
becomes a settlement as per the definition under s. 2 (p) and s. 18
(1) lays down that such a Settlement shall be binding on all the
parties to it.
• If a situation like the one in the present case arises which may lead
to a conflict between a settlement under s. 18 (1) and an award
binding under s. 18 (3) on publication, the only solution is to
withhold the award from publication.
• This would not in any way affect the mandatory nature of the
provisions in s. 17 (1) for the Government would ordinarily have to
publish the award but for the special situation arising in such
cases.